Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 09:34:58 -0500
From: Jason Tishler <jason AT tishler DOT net>
To: Robert Collins <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
Cc: Cygwin <cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>,
   "Roth, Kevin P." <KPRoth AT MarathonOil DOT com>
Subject: Re: rebase for setup (curl)
Message-ID: <20020107143458.GA1700@dothill.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Robert Collins <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>,
	Cygwin <cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>,
	"Roth, Kevin P." <KPRoth AT MarathonOil DOT com>
References: <6EB31774D39507408D04392F40A10B2BC1FEA4 AT FDYEXC202 DOT mgroupnet DOT com> <20020104185355 DOT GA2172 AT dothill DOT com> <0f2c01c19571$29015200$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0f2c01c19571$29015200$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i

Rob,

On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 09:42:57AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jason Tishler" <jason AT tishler DOT net>
> > I decided to table the search for the "offending" ld option(s) because
> > of the following gloomy thought:
> >
> >     Given that rebase can break certain DLLs and that it is nearly
> >     impossible to control how arbitrary packages create their DLLs,
> >     can setup.exe's proposed rebase solution deal with this problem?
> >     Or, is the rebase solution doomed to failure?
> 
> Time for a 2c opinion.
> 
> Looks like something is broken with dllwrap->ld interaction. Does
> adding --shared fix this? Or perhaps the -Wl,--dll should be replaced
> with --shared...
> 
> [snip]

False alarm or the boy who cried wolf...

I just built pq.dll and cygcurl-2.dll using their standard makefiles
and they were rebase-able.  This explains why my gcc -shared experiment
"worked" last week.

However, the pq.dll (and other PostgreSQL 7.1.3 DLLs) that I built over
the summer with an older (i.e., previous?) version of gcc/binutils is
not rebase-able.

So, with the latest tools there does *not* seem to be a problem.

Kevin, what version of gcc/binutils are you using?  Are they the latest?

Thanks,
Jason

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/